Issues – Labor & Employment – 1) Are overtime wages recoverable under the MD Wage Payment and Collection Law (MWPCL)? 2) In a bench trial, is it an abuse of discretion to fail, without explanation, to award treble damages under the MWPCL where there is no claim of bona fide dispute? 3) Should any award of up to treble damages under MWPCL be made in addition to the award of unpaid wages?

Issue – Workers’ Compensation – Was the trial court correct in granting summary judgment to Petitioners and affirming the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission that the accidental injury claim was barred by the statute of limitations?

Issue – Workers’ Compensation – Whether the statutory credit provided in § 9-633 of the Workers’ Compensation Act should be calculated based on the number of weeks of benefits previously paid or on the dollar amount of the benefits previously paid?

Issue – Workers’ Compensation – Did the trial court correctly grant summary judgment in favor of appellees based on a finding that when an award of Workers’ Compensation permanent partial disability benefits is increased on appeal, credit for payments made under the previous award should be expressed in weeks rather than dollars?

Attorney for Appellant: James K. MacAlister
Attorneys for Appellee: Zachary L. Erwin and David Skomba

Monday, May 5, 2014:

No. 83 Madison Park North Apartments, L.P. v. The Commissioner of Housing & Community Development

Issues – Housing and Community Development – 1) Is the Baltimore City regulation requiring multiple family housing license holders to “prevent” criminal activity void for vagueness? 2) If the CSA standard that a license holder must “hinder or impede” criminal activity is correct, was the substantial evidence that Petitioner failed to “hinder or impede” crime at MPNA? 3) Did CSA impermissibly shift the burden of proof to Petitioner? 4) Did Respondent violate Petitioner’s due process rights by prejudging, or giving the appearance of prejudgment, when it stated in a notice of hearing that “[t]here is sufficient evidence to establish that MPNA” failed to prevent crime?

Issues – Agriculture – 1) Did CSA err in broadly interpreting an exemption to disclosure under the Maryland Public Information Act, where such exemptions must be construed narrowly and in favor of disclosure? 2) Did CSA err in holding that Agriculture Art. § 8-801.1(b)(2) applies to all types of nutrient management records maintained for any period of time where the plain language expressly applies only to nutrient management plan summaries maintained by the MD Dept. of Agriculture for three years or less? 3) Did CSA err in deferring to the MD Dept. of Agriculture’s interpretation of Ag. Art. § 8-801.1(b)(2), where that expansive interpretation conflicts with the narrowly-tailored exemption to disclosure provided by the plain language of the statute?

Issues – Torts – 1) Did CSA err in its decisions that the trial court should have admitted the testimony and opinion of Respondent’s expert and should have instructed the jury on apportionment of damages? 2) Did CSA err in its conclusion that the use plaintiffs were required to join the action with a formal pleading and are now barred by the statute of limitations?

Tuesday, May 6, 2014:

No. 105 Ben C. Clyburn, et al. v. Quinton Richmond, et al.

Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Did the circuit court err in entering an injunction directing officials of the District Court to conduct initial appearances in a manner inconsistent with the existing rules promulgated by this Court? 2) Did the circuit court err in granting an application for supplemental relief based on a prior declaratory judgment without first issuing a show cause order, as required by the statute governing such applications? 3) Did the circuit court err in ordering officials of the District Court to appoint counsel for all arrestees at initial appearances and prohibiting those court officials from conducting initial appearances for arrestees who were not provided with counsel?

Issue – Criminal Law – In light of the requirement imposed by federal law that each state maintain an online registry of sex offenders residing in the state and the obligation imposed on convicted sex offenders by federal law to register in the state where they reside, did the circuit court lack authority to direct the State to remove Mr. Roe from databases maintained in compliance with federal law, irrespective of his challenge to registration requirements imposed by MD law?